get_repo_file_content

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the non-recursive directory behavior and full file content return, but omits important aspects like error handling, branch selection behavior, cache strategy effect, and authentication requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-organized: a concise behavioral overview followed by a PARAMETERS section with examples. Every sentence adds useful information, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core file/directory behavior well, but without an output schema or annotations it should also mention return format, error behavior, and branch/cache parameter implications. It also does not clarify when to use this instead of get_repo_structure, leaving some contextual gaps for a moderately configured tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds valuable meaning for repo_path with concrete examples (GitHub URL, Azure DevOps URL, local path) and clarifies that resource_path defaults to the root directory. However, it completely omits branch and cache_strategy, leaving two of four parameters without any explanation beyond their names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and clearly scopes the resource: file contents or directory listings from a repository. It further distinguishes behavior for files versus directories, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like get_repo_structure and get_repo_critical_files.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied through the file-vs-directory behavior, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_repo_structure or list_repos. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.